Attack a sacred Python Cow

[cokofreedom at gmail.com]

>
> By that logic, C++ is not OO. By that logic, Ruby is not OO. By that
> logic, I know of only one OO language: Java :)
>
> The fact that a language doesn't force you to do object-oriented
> programming doesn't mean that it's not object-oriented. In other
> words, your words are nonsense.
>

No, what it means is that it might support OO but doesn't have to, it
isn't the only way to code.

Supporting and Being OO are very different.